(first posted 12/2/2018) The CC Cohort is full of goodies; way too many to show all here. But this rather battered survivor of a 1968 Buick GS California posted by jwflynn cannot be denied. Especially so since it’s so far away from its namesake state, having been found in Massachusetts. Only 4,831 of these were built in 1968, and apparently they were available nationwide the full model year or just the second half, having been CA-only in ’67 and early ’68. Given its survivor status, this is an excellent find. Let’s celebrate it!
The GS California arrived in 1967 as a stylish and but less overtly sporty alternative to the GS 400 and GS 340, which was adorned in bold stripes.
The GS California was a bit more subdued, for those wanting some of that sporty look but not the kind that screams it, as was becoming the style.
I searched in vain to find an ad or brochure shot for a ’68 GS California. They were not in the ’68 brochure, but apparently a two-page foldout was issued when it went national in the spring of 1968. These are technically not true GS’s, as they are a package based on the Special DeLuxe (VIN43327) thin-pillar coupe, and have a GS hood, badges, trim, HD suspension and the 350-4V engine. They are not the same as the GS 350, which had its own codes, although it shared engines and the HD suspension.
The GS 350 was a fairly bare-bones muscle car, in the vein of the Road Runner, although not really competitive with it. The GS California came standard with an automatic (ST 300; THM 350 in ’69), vinyl top, styled steel sport wheels and unique trim. Apparently option choices were limited; the idea was to create a package without the need for a lot of tailoring.
This poor car got hit pretty hard in the ribs, but that’s hardly a fatal blow. Whether it will ever get fixed is another matter.
I’ve never been a fan of Buicks’s take on the ’68-’69 A Body coupe, as it looked too fussy at the rear and a bit heavy on the sides due to those large hips and low-cut rear wheel openings. But it’s still good to see one doing battle on the streets.
It’s ironic given the legit battered body, but my biggest dislike for these 68-69 Buicks is the bumpers always look like they suffered accidents.
Yeah, the ’68-’69 Buick intermediates were definitely the weak link among the GM divisions. The revamped ’70-’72 models were a marked improvement and those cars were just as good as its cousins. The colonnade versions were even better and, to me, the best of that series.
I also much prefer the revised model – never liked that V-shaped rear end. I found this nice example – also far from home – in London near Grosvenor Square four years ago. I believe it is a 71 or 72.
A good friend had a new ice blue Skylark coupe back in 1972 – really beautiful car, great quality and performance.
The V-shaped rear end could have worked if it were toned down a bit. It’s like someone took the stylist’s exaggerated concept sketch and put it straight into production. Definitely the weak point of the styling.
I do like the 70 better but I also feel they look a little too much like their cousins, cover the ends and it’s indistinguishable from a 70 Chevelle. I wish Buick would have retained the quarter window shape for 70, that’s the best feature on the 68s and would have kept some distinction.
I agree about the early Collonades, Buick was the best looking and most resolved of them from the start.
+2 on the early Buick colonnades over these.
+3.
Somehow the elongated curve front fenders that looked so cartoon-ish and tacky on the Monte Carlo body became graceful and retro on the Regal.
Agree, I don’t think I ever saw one of these where all the gaps were right in the areas around the back bumper.
I doubt if this car will ever be fixed. I’m sure that the A and B pillars have moved and would require more money and time than the car is worth to fix. Better to enjoy the car as is and have fun with it.
One other A-body GS available in 1967 was the Special post coupe with an optional GS ornamentation package (RPO W1). It didn’t include any standard mechanical upgrades from the basic Special. The 340 performance engine was optional on all Specials; a Special GS could be equipped like a GS 340.
I’m pleased to see the ‘stepchildren’ as some call them on Buick forums get some attention.
Despite the rest of the car being so battered, those Buick wheels still shine and stand out!
They always do!
I was never a fan of the ’68-69 Skylarks-the sculptured s-curve on the side and the chrome trim reminded me too much of the ’58 Buicks with all the chrome slathered on them; I think by the late 60’s all the GM divisions were offering similar models for those wanting something sportier looking.
I wonder if the 68 Mustang California Special was in some way a direct response to this.
Short answer, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Special_Mustang
cheers for that
Always thought these were interesting looking.
Great find – thanks for posting it jwflynn!
Thanks – I was lucky to grab it. Was on my way to home depot and saw it, but didn’t have time to stop. luckily it was still there the next day. Haven’t seen it since.
This was a really odd styling job. It is funny that for a design that was supposed to look so sleek and racy, the 4 door hardtop was the only body style of this generation that was really attractive.
This was a really strange time at GM. Buick was chasing the performance crowd with the various GS models while Chevrolet was making a play for the luxury car customer with the Caprice and had the Monte Carlo in development. Contrary to GM’s thinking at the time, Alfred Sloan did *not* say “A car for every purse and purpose within every Division.”
Caprice was a reaction to the ’65 Ford LTD. Sloan [GM] didn’t think Ford would ever market something not ‘basic’. GM didn’t dictate the market anymore, starting in the 60’s.
GS was a trim of the Buick A body. Some would say that just offering a mid size car was ‘brand dilution’, but even “big cars only” Chrysler had to give in with Cordoba.
Minority here. I liked the distinctive rear end on the ’68 and ’69 Skylarks.
A question and a comment: First, didn’t these use the same roofline and quarter window shape as the Cutlass and Chevelle? Second, I cannot look at one of these and not think of Lily Tomlin driving around with a body in the trunk in the film “9 to 5”.
Ha!
Lily Tomlin (and/or her stunt driver) really did make that baby blue Buick move out well in that movie!
As a classic car collector my latest buy was 72 Skylark hardtop coupe ALL original 55K miles car here is the link to original ad by seller !
https://www.connorsmotorcar.com/vehicles/445/1972-buick-skylark
My Dad’s friend got a new slate-blue-gray ’68 Special 4 dr sedan as a Honeywell Co. car, and I really liked it, it looked really sharp and radically different when it was new, but as mentioned it didn’t take much to make those bumpers look out of alignment with the rest of the rear!
I think the ’68 GSs were the best looking of all the 68-72 GM A bodies – with the exception the ’70 Chevelle SS.
Here’s my ’68 GS California – a little nicer than the subject of this article. But this is what that car would have/could look like.
Agree with the consensus on the unfortunate rear ends on these ’68-’69’s.
On the other hand the front ends were better and more distinctive. And with the Buick “W” front. GM was really on a roll from ’65 through ’68 in terms of giving each of their brands a distinctive frontal identity and executing it across the board: Chevy (excluding Corvette, and later Camaro) had the raked front fender edge; Pontiac, the split grille; Olds (excluding Toronado) the split headlights and overall dumbbell shape; Buick the “W” front and Cadillac the enlarged, pointed egg crate grille at the center. Something neither Ford nor Chrysler managed to pull off.
Ford’s round afterburner taillights used in the 50s-60s should qualify, Lincoln committed hard and heavy to the rolls royce style grille and fake tire hump as well. Chrysler yeah, I’m trying to think of any front or rear end theme that consistently remained past one model cycle. The 300 crosshair grille initially comes to mind but its use was sporadic and inexplicably got hijacked by Dodge at some point
An example of what my mid-west relatives would call “Rode hard and put away wet too often”.
Po’ Buick!
Despite the ‘68 Skylarks having a lot going on with their styling, I actually don’t mind most of it and find them rather interesting. That said, was there ever a more poorly executed full vinyl roof treatment on a 1960’s automobile than the one on these coupes? There is not a single angle in which one could view where it doesn’t look like it was meant for a totally different C-pillar. Hardly a shock it lasted a single year before someone thought to rethink the design…
My dad bought my youngest sister a car for graduation. Dad wasn’t real big on models, just the company that made the car interested him. Engine size wasn’t his deal either- he once told a friend of mine that “he really liked the 67 Ford Country Squire he owned because it was so powerful. You know, he said, that car had the Ford 490 engine!
So there was no surprise on my face when he followed Cathy home with her new to her 68 Buick Skylark (actually it was a GS 400!)
I recall asking him if he was aware that this was a pretty darn fast, sports car and he said no. He just knew it was a Buick, a Skylark, and owned by a little old lady!
Meanwhile my sister is showing me how long she can leave rubber on the streets or trying to calculate the 0-60 times!
Sadly, she let her fiancée drive it. Gary made good friends with some boys at the bar one evening, Ron Rocco, uh someone named Jack Daniel’s, and a chap they called Captain Morgan. He offered them a ride, was just ready to lift the front wheels off the ground (for you pilots, V1) when a tree jumped right in front of the car. It was a major redesign with the wipers moved back to the middle of the bench seat, and you could see both the back and front of each headlight.
It’d have been passed down to me. Oh well